Jadidoleslami, S. and Saghatforoush, E. (2026) Unveiling interdependencies across phases: MICMAC analysis of BIM and AI integration challenges in construction. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 22(4), pp. 1188-1210. ISSN 1745-2007
Abstract
The integration of Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry faces complex challenges across project phases, hindering adoption. This study pioneers the use of Cross-Impact Matrix Multiplication Applied to Classification (MICMAC) to systematically map direct and indirect interdependencies among 17 key challenges, extracted from a systematic review of 65 sources and validated by 10 industry experts. Employing a sociotechnical systems lens, the analysis reveals bivariate instability drivers—'Data Integration Issues' and 'Data Management Concerns'—that propagate risk from design to operation via causal chains and feedback loops (e.g. design-phase data fragmentation → execution-phase real-time processing failure). While prior BIM–AI integration studies predominantly employ isolated barrier enumeration, ISM for hierarchy building, or DEMATEL for cause–effect mapping, they rarely reveal indirect causal propagation and bivariate instability amplifiers that span project phases. This study applies MICMAC—which uniquely classifies variables by direct + indirect influence/dependence power and exposes feedback loops and systemic instability—to uncover phase-crossing vulnerabilities and bivariate strategic variables (not identifiable via ISM's hierarchy alone or DEMATEL's pairwise causality without multiplication iterations). The resulting model provides the first phase-sensitive, predictive systemic framework for BIM+AI adoption risks in the AEC industry..
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | AEC industry; artificial intelligence; building information modeling; cross-impact matrix analysis; system interactions |
| Index terms: | artificial intelligence, building information modelling, data management, vulnerability, matrix analysis, fragmentation, propagation, systematic literature review, interaction, mapping, face, feedback loop, integration |
| Subjects: | spatial and geospatial analysis, behavioral psychology, data science, engineering process, data management, artificial intelligence, environmental hazards, research evaluation and metrics, organizational analysis, control systems, psychology, business, information systems |
| Topics: | Digital Applications, Research Practice, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here